|
I would say that one of the "issues" is that the ASI1600 is best used with shorter exposures. If nothing else this comes down to the full well capacity. You're shooting at F/3.3 with 15 minutes exposures with a camera that has a pretty small well depth. The 16200 sensor has a well depth of 39,000e-. The 8300 has a well depth of 25,500e- while the ASI1600 has a well depth of ~8,200e- at Gain 75 or 4,100e- at Gain 139. At the other end the 16803 has 100,000e-!
I have been imaging at F/5.21 at Gain 139 and I find that anything over 400s with 3nm filters in Ha isn't useful from Melbourne. Would no doubt be different up at Heathcote.
The cost of a camera shouldn't really be used as comparison of its actual quality, that more comes down to the chip used and manufacturer. It is more to do with a match up between the chip and telescope. For instance, a QHY16200 is cheaper and will outperform a FLI-11002 in virtually every respect. Considerably lower read noise and a higher QE; the pixels are a bit smaller but that helps with resolution.
With your telescope, you're imaging at quite a quick focal ratio so focus and collimation are very sensitive to being slightly off. From what I have seen, the Epsilon 130ED is also not as perfect with the tiny pixels of the ASI1600, this causes a "softness".
|